Northeast Kingdom Processing LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII.  Stunning Effectiveness: At approximately 12:10 pm while observing a Sow being stunned in the knock box I saw the plant employee reach over the rail and apply a shot with a captive bolt stun gun, I heard the sow vocalize.  I observed the employee immediately use a second captive bolt stun gun and apply another shot.  The sow vocalized again.  The plant employee then used the electric wand to apply an electric stun to the sow.  The sow was now unconscious.  Once the sow was moved away from the knock box I applied US Reject tag No. B42198150.   The sow’s dressed weight was 363 pounds.  I informed Plant Manager and Slaughter Supervisor a non-compliance would be issued.  This is non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1).  A review in PHIS indicates a similar non-compliance, NGO2713033021N was documented on March 21, 2022.  Since the plant was under abeyance, no RSA is present.

313.30(a)(1)

On 3/21/22 at approximately 10:50 am, I CSI REDACTED stumbled upon a Stunning Effectiveness Humane Handling incident (HATS Category VIII). I performed a Directed Humane Handling Task. I heard a hog vocalize, and turned around to see the person performing the stunning task (the stunner) removing the stunning wand from the hog’s neck. I then heard the stunner shout, and watched him put the stunning wand behind the hog’s ears again. The hog then vocalized again. At this point the stunner opened the gate and administered the voltage through the wand to the hog’s heart. Just after that, the hog vocalized again, and I saw the head moving. The forequarters were also moving slowly in a way that was not consistent with death throes. The stunner was moving to chain the legs to hoist the hog up for the stick, but I stopped him and told him and the kill floor Supervisor that the hog was not fully stunned. At this point the stunner held the wand at the heart much longer, there was a brief vocalization, and then hog performed the rhythmic death throes consistent with a stunned hog. The hog was then hoisted up and stuck. At this point, I placed Rejected tag No. B42088962 on the kill chute and informed the plant manager of the noncompliance with 9CFR § 313.30 (a)(1).

313.2

HATS Category VI – Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use On 12/28/21 at approximately 11:15, IPP performed a Routine Humane Handling task. I was observing the driving of a steer from a pen to the chute. At this establishment, there is a forcing pen with a forcing gate that the livestock is driven into just before entering the chute and the kill box. A forcing pen is a semi-circle that the animal is driven into, and the forcing gate is a solid metal gate that runs the radius of the semi-circle and a handler moves the forcing gate, closing the circle to a narrow slit that leads directly into the chute. In this instance, the steer stayed immobile in the narrowest part of the forcing pen, and would not proceed into the chute and the kill box. Several humane methods were attempted to coax the steer to move, but he remained very stationary. REDACTED, the establishment’s primary animal handler at this time, also sought assistance from REDACTED, the establishment’s smokehouse supervisor (who also has training and experience on the kill floor handling livestock). The animal would not move, and REDACTED became very frustrated and angry. I observed him darting at the forcing gate twice in quick succession with a great deal of force. The steer was on the other side of this solid metal gate when REDACTED rammed into it, it was pinned between the gate and the concrete wall. The event happened with a great deal of aggression, and very quickly. REDACTED ordered REDACTED out of the barn, and REDACTED threw his helmet against the concrete wall and left. The steer remained immobile in the corner of the forcing pen. This is a Humane Handling noncompliance with 9 CFR § 313.2(a) due to the employee’s not handling of the steer with a “minimum of excitement and discomfort.” This noncompliance is not associated with any other noncompliance record, and no product was involved. When REDACTED ordered REDACTED out of the barn, and REDACTED complied, this constituted an Immediate Corrective Action performed by the plant. No regulatory action was taken by IPP. The steer was eventually coaxed into the chute and the kill box and humanely handled for the remainder of this process.